But that's one of the things feminists have tried to change. If women made the same salaries as men, would you still say that the woman should be the one to stay at home with the kids? Equal pay would mean the parents can choose who should do the child-rearing without money being part of the equation.

Another reason to not swing the pendulum so far to the other side that we glorify jobs that either put women in danger (truck driving) or negate or outright demonize their predisposition towards certain fields (kindergarten teacher).

I never said we have to tell women what jobs they shouldn't take. The problem is that if things are already skewed (for example, if most people get a woman as their kidnergarten teacher and see only men driving trucks), it's hard to say that children aren't influenced by these types of examples. And that's why, right now, feminists try to put a lot of attention on these differences - so that maybe people will think a little longer and harder about what made them choose one career or another.

As far as it being the "greatest" job they could have, that is a bit misleading.

Watch just about any "women's" program, wait for them to get to the part about motherhood, and they will call it the greatest job anyone could ever have. I'm not saying it isn't - but we're only ever saying this to the women.

Ahh, "Motherly instinct" I think they call it. So, has feminism caused women to shift their focus away from motherhood and onto other aspirations such as working? If so, how do you think that this will impact society as a whole? No, you are not required to respond in essay form.

You forgot to read the premise: "If societal roles were reversed." If men traditionally stayed home with the children and women were expected to provide for their families, your father would probably want to stay and home and your mother would be happy to go to work.

That would work fine. But then what happens when the men decide that they want to work for themselves. What happens to the children? The answer is daycare. Sadly. Don't take that the wrong way, I realize that since the roles have been skewed it is neccessary, and that is my point. The "liberation" of women via the feminist movement has created a missing social role in many families. I spent many a day in day care and after school programs and I can speak firsthand that I recieved little to no moral guidance and felt no sort of bond with any of my caregivers.

It is way too easy to blame feminism for the lack of parents in the household, but the real blame lies with the shift in the economy from labor jobs to service jobs. 30 years ago, a man could get a job and make enough money to support a family, and he would probably stay there the rest of his life. After all the post-WWII related production died down, the economy shifted from producing things that required skilled labor to producing services that didn't. This opened us up to a bunch of "moderate" paying jobs. Today, most jobs do not pay enough to support a family on a one person income. In many cases, women HAVE to work in order for both parents to put food on the table. Let's just take arbitrary average income of 40-60K/year. In many urban areas, this is just enough to scrape by for a family of 4. Most people don't like to scrape by. Now, if you have a man who makes 50k a year and a woman who makes 35k a year (we'll assume she makes less, like part-time work), then you have an income of 95k a year which could allow the family the luxury of living in a condo or a house. So before you blame feminists for the degragation of the family, just remember that there are economics involved as well.

95k? I bought my first home, a condo, in 1998 for just over 72 thousand dollars. I made, at that time approximatley, 30 thousand dollars and year and my wife took in around 24 thousand dollars. This is before tax dollars mind you. That's 54 thousand dollars and we also both owned two newer cars. It's not that the money isn't available, it's that people are not willing to trade in their Audi's for Honda's in order to better provide for a family. That's my opinion.

I contend that the hypothesis that women used to spend vastly more time with their children is false. Before the industrialized era, the woman worked as hard as the male to provide for the family, whether it be by baking the daily bread, tilling the fields, milking the cows, etc... Women were not encouraged to work outside the home, but nor were men. And did you ever hear of one of the most commonly diagnosed ailments of wealthy women in the 19th century? Ennui!

Also, women have held jobs down from the earliest times, including innkeepers, alewives, etc... In our fairly puritanical society, teacher was one of the earliest conventional female professions.

I inquire of the group mind - What jobs do you think are acceptable for women? I agree that stay-at-home moms are not to be disparaged, but is that the only praiseworthy choice for women in your view?

But then where were the kids? I know they weren't being neglected at daycare centers, they weren't watching sex and violence on TV, they weren't scouting for mates at the mall, and they weren't surfing the net. They probably were out there working with their parents, actually.

I think any job is acceptable for a woman. What are some that aren't supposed to be?

I don't agree with anyone who chooses to put their kids in daycare. If they have a nanny, or another relative who is watching the kids (like, say, a grandmother) that's fine. But I think daycare is bad for child development. I read an article a while ago (no link, sorry) that children who grew up in daycare tended to be more violent.

I think as long as a woman can pass the same qualifications as men, they can have any job they want. I don't think the qualifications for firefighter, police officer ect should be lowered for women. They job require physical strength. I would trust a male firefighter to pull my family out of a burning building, more then a female.

My main problem with feminists is they tell women you can have everything...a career and a family and nothing will suffer. Once you have children something has to give...either your children will suffer or you career. I strongly believe that one parent should be home for the children, especially the first 5 years. I can live with a grandparent or other close relative, but a child really needs one on one attention and care from someone who loves them.

I'm a stay at home mom of 3 kids. If I could make more money then my husband I would work after my 6 month old daughter is weaned. My husband makes about 40k a year, we dont live in a big city, we own our own home, bought newer used vehicles and still have some money for a computer PS2 and the nice extras that make life fun. Life would be alot easier if I was working, money wouldn't be so tight, but life would not be better for our children. Once you have children everything you do has to be what is best for them.

Bravo Jedi-Master_Mom! I don't even want to have children if we can't arrange for one of us to be home with them until they are at least school age. Heck, I hate leaving my cats when I go to work in the morning, I can't fathom dropping an infant off at even a relative's for the day, much less daycare.

Most people would not want to leave their car with strangers to care for as they wish for 8 hours a day, yet they have no compunction about doing just that with their children.